South Carolina: after state supreme court struck down law giving prosecutors control over court’s docket, legislature attempting to force issue; prosecutors “should not be restrained or controlled by another branch of government”

Up until a few years ago, South Carolina had a statute that granted the local prosecutors control over the criminal docket, allowing the prosecutor to set the calendar (emphasis added).

The solicitors shall attend the courts of general sessions for their respective circuits. Preparation of the dockets for general sessions courts shall be exclusively vested in the circuit solicitor and the solicitor shall determine the order in which cases on the docket are called for trial. Provided, however, that no later than seven days prior to the beginning of each term of general sessions court, the solicitor in each circuit shall prepare and publish a docket setting forth the cases to be called for trial during the term.

The state supreme court struck down on a 4-1 vote the law in 2012 as an unconstitutional infringement on the separation of powers (State v. Lankford, 735 S.E.2d 471 (S.C. 2012)) and issued an administrative order attached to the opinion regarding docket control. Now the legislature is attempting to force the issue and put control back with prosecutors.

HB 4981 and SB 1126 as introduced effectively declares that the control of the calendar is an executive, not judicial, function citing to the fact that prosecutors are elected by the voters (judges in SC’s higher courts are selected by the legislature).

Whereas, the General Assembly finds that developing and publishing a plan to properly proceed with the state’s criminal prosecutions, preparing the general session’s docket for the state’s prosecutions and determining the order in which the docketed cases are called for trial is an executive function of the government properly performed by the elected Circuit Solicitor; and

Whereas, the executive branch of government, as represented by the Circuit Solicitor, when exercising a discretionary official act such as preparing the general sessions court docket and determining the order in which docketed cases are called, should not be restrained or controlled by another branch of government; and

The bill then repeals the old statute, only to replace it with one that continues to give the prosecutor control (emphasis added)

Criminal cases in circuit court must be calendared by the Circuit Solicitor according to a written criminal case-docketing plan developed by the Circuit Solicitor for each circuit. Each criminal docketing plan must be published on the Circuit Solicitor’s website, if available, or at each courthouse in the Circuit Solicitor’s circuit if a website is unavailable. The Circuit Solicitor, in his sole discretion, may develop an individual docketing plan for each county within the circuit.

In addition it would the prosecutor who sets pleas, motions, and other events.

Both bills have been filed in their respective Judiciary Committees.

South Carolina: Legislature can’t vote active legislators into judgeships, but can they vote their family members in? House and Senate bills would ban practice.

South Carolina’s one of only two states (Virginia’s the other) where the legislature elects/selects judges for most (SC) or all (VA) courts; the governor plays no role except for interim appointments. In South Carolina there is an existing statute which prohibits legislators from being elected until they leave office for at least 1 year. Now there’s a proposal (HB 4404 and the similar SB 1082) to extend that 1-year prohibition to spouses and other family members as well.

The Senate version keeps the 1 year ban on legislators and extends it to a “spouse, child, parent, sibling, mother-in-law, or father-in-law” of a General Assembly member.

The House version is broader and makes the ban longer (5 years) for both the General Assembly member and his or her “spouse, child, parent, sibling, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, or any person who is domiciled for the previous six months or more with any of the above named relations of any member of the General Assembly…”

Both bills have been filed in their respective Judiciary Committees.

Georgia House advances bill for legislative takeover of judicial disciplinary commission; South Carolina Senate votes on takeover today

The list of legislatures looking to take over state judicial disciplinary commissions is growing.

Georgia

A plan discussed here to move the state’s independent judicial disciplinary commission (Judicial Qualifications Commission) under the legislature has cleared the House. Both a constitutional amendment (HR 1113) and enabling legislation (HB 808) that would vacate the existing JQC and create a new one. In addition the House this week approved creation of a panel to investigate and subpoena the JQC and its members. (h/t Gavel Grab)

South Carolina

An ethics reform package (HB 3184, originally discussed here) approved by the House and set for a Senate vote today would recreate the state’s Commission on Judicial Conduct in statute and diminish the state supreme court’s power to name the Commission on Judicial Conduct’s members.

The current 26 member Commission on Judicial Conduct is created by Rule 502, South Carolina Appellate Court Rules and chosen entirely by the Supreme Court. The new 24 member Commission would have only 1/3 chosen by that court.

  • 8 chosen by the Supreme Court, including 6 judges
  • 4 chosen by the Senate (2 attorneys, 2 non-attorneys)
  • 4 chosen by the House (2 attorneys, 2 non-attorneys)
  • 8 chosen by the Governor, (4 attorneys, 2 non-attorneys)

Under what conditions/provisions should active and retired judges be allowed to carry firearms? South Carolina and Virginia debating plans to expand where and when judges can carry guns

Many states permit the judges of their courts to carry firearms without a permit and/or into places that the general public could not possess a firearm. Georgia, for example, enacted in 2014 an expansion in the number and types of retired judges who could carry (HB 60). Now legislatures in South Carolina and Virginia are debating where, when, and how active and retired judges should be allowed to carry weapons.

South Carolina: Present law (21-31-240) allows active judges and justices who possess a concealed carry permit the ability to “carry a concealable weapon anywhere within this State, when carrying out the duties of their office.” SB 1023 of 2016 would replace “active” with “active or retired” and drop the “carrying out the duties” language.

SB 1023 has been filed in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Virginia: Present law (18.2-308) details the state’s concealed carry permit process and then lists those who are not required to obtain such a permit in order to carry anywhere in the state. HB 332 (as introduced) and the identical SB 544 would add both active and retired judges to the list.

Except as provided in subsection A of § 18.2-308.012, [carrying a concealed handgun while under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs] this section shall not apply to…Any judge or retired judge of the Commonwealth, wherever such judge may travel in the Commonwealth.

At this point however the chambers are split. The Senate approved 40-0 this original language; SB 544 is now pending in the House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee.

The House on the other hand adopted amended language for HB 332 that tied carrying closer to the discharge of judges’ official duties or while in transit to them.

This section shall also not apply to any of the following individuals while in the discharge of their official duties, or while in transit to or from such duties…in addition to the provisions of subdivision D 3, any judge, justice, or retired judge or justice of the Commonwealth who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit may carry a concealed handgun wherever such judge or justice may travel in the Commonwealth.

The House language was approved 97-0 on February 3; media coverage here. The bill was sent to the Senate Courts of Justice Committee.

 

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: reintroduced or active in 12 states; bill moves in SC; threat of impeachment against judges in WV

As I noted last July 2015 saw some 32 pieces of legislation introduced in 17 states to ban or limit the use by state courts of sharia or foreign/international law. 2016 looks to pick up where 2015 left off with a raft of new legislation introduced in 12 states. Of note:

Continued reference to sharia in particular

Notable regarding many of these bills is the continued focus on specifically banning the use by state courts of sharia law (South Carolina HB 3521 as introduced; Missouri HJR 69). The specific targeting of sharia was held as unconstitutional in a decision by the Tenth Circuit in 2012 a sharia-specific constitutional amendment approved by Oklahoma voters in 2010. Perhaps as a result the version adopted by the South Carolina House last week eliminated the word “sharia”. That ruling has not stopped Missouri’s proposal, which is practically a verbatim copy of the Oklahoma 2010 proposal struck down by the Tenth Circuit.

Missouri HJR 69 of 2016

The courts provided for in this section, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Missouri, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include sharia law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts, including but not limited to cases of first impression.

Oklahoma HJR 1056 of 2010

The Courts provided for in subsection A of this section, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Oklahoma Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia Law , in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia Law. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.

Threat of impeachment

Also of note is a West Virginia version of this bill which threatens impeachment for any judge who violates the provision (“Any decision or ratification of a private agreement that is determined, on the merits, by a judge in this state who relies on any body of religious sectarian law or foreign law is void, is appealable error and is grounds for impeachment and removal from office.”)

List of proposals and their current status below the fold.

Continue reading Bans on court use of sharia/international law: reintroduced or active in 12 states; bill moves in SC; threat of impeachment against judges in WV

Across country, state legislatures consider altering number of nominees judicial nominating commissions must release

One particular aspect of judicial selection legislatures have had a keen interest has been the number of names that advance through judicial nominating commissions (JNCs). 2016 looks to be no exception; in Missouri SJR 30 prefiled for the new year would eliminate the restriction that the state’s JNCs send only three names to the governor. Moreover, an examination of legislation over the last two decades shows a marked uptick in interest outside of Missouri over the last several years.

Alaska

The state’s constitution provides the state’s JNC send “two or more persons” to the governor when a vacancy occurs in either the Supreme or Superior Court; statutes require “two or more persons” for Court of Appeals (Alaska Stat. § 22.07.070) and District Court (§ 22.15.170) vacancies. No recent attempt has been made to alter these provisions.

Arizona

The state’s constitution provides that if the vacancy is on the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or Superior Court (in counties that use a commission system) the governor is to receive the names of “not less than three persons.” Several efforts have been made to amend this provision. SCR 1038 of 2005 would have increased this to 6 names for appellate vacancies and 7 for Superior Courts. In 2011 proposals were submitted (SCR 1040, SCR 1046, and SCR 1049) that would have increased the list to 6 names for appellate vacancies and 7 for Superior Courts.

The proposal that eventually made it on the ballot was SCR 1001 of 2011: 8 names for both trial and appellate vacancies. SCR 1001 also included several other changes to give governors more power over the JNCs. When it appeared on the 2012 ballot as Proposition 115 it received only a 27% yes vote. Undaunted by the loss, the legislature in 2013 passed HB 2600. Rather than amend the constitution, the legislature tried to force by statute the JNCs to provide governors “the names of at least five persons” for trial and appellate vacancies. In September 2013 the state’s supreme court held that law unconstitutional.

Colorado

The state’s constitution provides the JNCs in the state are to provide “a list of three nominees for the supreme court and any intermediate appellate court, and… a list of two or three nominees for all other courts of record…” No recent attempt has been made to alter these provisions.

Connecticut

Connecticut adopted a commission based system in 1986: governors nominate from a list provided by the state’s judicial selection commission but the constitution is silent as to the number. State law (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-44a) provides that the commission is to provide the governor a list of all “qualified candidates”. No recent attempt has been made to alter these provisions.

Florida

The state adopted a merit/commission system in 1972 for the state’s trial and appellate courts. The original provision required the JNCs to submit a list of “not fewer than three persons”. For the appellate courts, this was amended in 1976 to precisely 3 (“one of three persons nominated”). For trial courts, commission appointment was eliminated, but was made optional under a 1998 amendment that allowed voters to opt in for each county in the 2000 election. Under the 1998 trial court opt-in provision “not fewer than three” names were to go to the governor. No county opted into this system for its trial courts.

For the appellate courts, several efforts were made in the 1990s to change the “not fewer than three persons” language. The first was to change it to precisely “three persons” (SJR 18 of 1992). Eventually the legislature settled on “Not fewer than three persons nor more than six persons” (HJR 1415 and SJR 978 of 1996). The expansion to 3-6 names was approved by voters as Amendment 3 in November 1996.

By 2000 another round of efforts were made to expand the list, this time by dropping any numerical requirements and providing the JNCs were to send a list of all applicants (HB 923 of 2000) or a list of all persons eligible to fill the vacancy (HB 627, HB 827, SB 1794, and SB 1860 of 2001). None of the proposals advanced and the issue has appeared to have remained dormant since.

Hawaii

The state adopted a commission based appointment system in the 1978. Originally the commission was required to submit a “list of not less than six nominees” for each vacancy in the state’s appellate and trial courts. A 1994 amendment (SB 2294) modified this to “a list of not less than four, and not more than six” for the Supreme, Intermediate Appellate, and Circuit Courts; District Courts remained at “not less than six nominees”.

There the matter lay for over a decade until a 2005 effort (SB 1166) would have provided the lists for all courts were to be made up of “not less than three.” In 2007 a measure to change the threshold down to 3-5 names for all courts was introduced. SB 948 was approved by the full Senate and advanced through the House Judiciary Committee before ultimately dying when the legislature adjourned.

Indiana

The state’s constitution provides the judicial nominating commission must submit “a list of three nominees” to the governor for vacancies on the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals. No recent attempt has been made to alter these provisions.

Iowa

The state’s constitution provides that the judicial nominating commission is to provide “three nominees” for Supreme Court vacancies and “two nominees” for District Courts; a statute (Iowa Code § 46.14A) with respect to the Court of Appeals repeats the “three nominees” language.

With respect to the constitutional provision, there were several efforts (SJR 2006 of 2010; SJR 6 and SJR 7 of 2011) to allow the governor to reject the list of three names provided for Supreme Court vacancies and requiring the commission submit a list of three new names. None advanced.

With respect to the Court of Appeals, the statute creating the court in 1976 required the nominating commission provide the governor a list of 3 names for vacancies on that court (former § 46.15). That number was expanded to five when the state’s judiciary was reorganized in 1983. The number was reverted back to 3 when portions of section Iowa Code § 46.15 were recodified as § 46.14A (SF 381 of 2007).

Kansas

The state’s constitution specifies that with respect to the Supreme Court the Supreme Court Nominating Commission is to provide the governor a list of “three persons.” The state’s Court of Appeals had until 2013 also be selected in like fashion via a statutory system (Kan. Stat. Ann. § 20-3005) that required a list of “three nominees”. In addition District Courts in those judicial districts that have opted into the commission-select system have their vacancies filled from a list of “not less than two nor more than three persons for each office which is vacant” (§ 20-2909).

With respect to the Supreme Court, there was an effort to allow governors to reject the list of 3 names and be provided a second list of 3 new names for a total of 6 (HCR 5005 of 2009) or to simply have the commission submit 6 names on the first list (SCR 1619 of 2007 & SCR 1612 of 2009). Another (HCR 5027 of 2013) would have provided the commission submit all qualified persons to the governor.

With respect to the Court of Appeals no effort was made to expand the list the commission was required to provide, the commission system was simply eliminated in 2013 and the governor permitted to appoint any qualified person subject to senate confirmation.

With respect to the District Courts, no recent effort appears to have been made to modify the current practice of 2-3 names.

Missouri

Since adoption of its commission-based plan the Missouri constitution has specified that commissions are to submit “three persons” to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and specified Circuit Courts. Although a 1976 constitutional revision moved the location of the language (from Art. V, Sec. 29(a) to the new Art. V, Sec 25(a)) the 3-persons provision was unchanged.

Much of the focus in this area has been for a 4/8 or 5/10 plan. Under the proposals the initial list submitted to the governor would be made up of 4 or 5 names (vs. the current 3). The governor would be allowed to reject the list and ask for a new one, for a total of 8 or 10 nominees.

The 4/8 plan appeared in HJR 19 of 2009 (as introduced) and SJR 17 of 2011.

The 5/10 provision appeared in HJR 49 of 2008, HJR 10 of 2009 (as amended), SJR 9 of 2009, HJR 58 of 2010, HJR 18 of 2011, and HJR 44 of 2012. A plan that would allow for only a single list of 5 names was considered as HJR 52 of 2008.

The latest iteration prefiled for the 2016 session (SJR 30) would simply eliminate the 3-name provision.

Nebraska

The state’s constitution provides vacancies in the state’s Supreme and District Courts must be filed from a list of “of at least two nominees” presented to the governor. Various statutes extend this practice to the Court of Appeals (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1101), County Courts (§ 24-820) and Juvenile Courts (§ 43-2,114) and incorporate the constitutional provision by reference. No recent attempt has been made to alter these provisions.

New Mexico

New Mexico uses a unique two-step process for judicial selection. When a vacancy occurs one of three JNCs (appellate judges, district court judges, or metropolitan court judges commissions) meets and submits to the governor a list of all “persons qualified for judicial office and recommended for appointment”. The governor can then ask for a second list of names. Whoever is picked, however, must then face off in partisan elections at the next general election.

While the constitution does not provide for a minimum or maximum number of names, one bill did seek to put such a provision in place after a single name was submitted in 2006 to the state’s governor to fill a District Court vacancy and no additional names sent when he asked for a second list. SB 1075 of 2007 would have required JNCs provide at least two names per vacancy. The bill never proceeded out of committee.

New York

New York’s constitution since 1977 requires vacancies for the state’s top court (called the Court of Appeals) be filled via a commission on judicial nomination, but gives the legislature power to set the organization and procedure of the commission. State law on this subject (Judiciary Law § 63) specifies the list to fill associate judgeship must contain “at least three persons and not more than seven persons.” Interestingly, the chief judgeship must be made up of at least 7 persons (“In recognition of the unique responsibilities of the chief judge of the court of appeals for policies of judicial administration, for a vacancy in the office of chief judge the commission shall recommend to the governor seven persons.”)

In 1993 an effort (AB 916) was made to raise the 7-name limit for chief judge to 11 names and automatically put all serving associate judges on that list. The bill was reintroduced for several sessions thereafter (AB 3699 of 1995 & AB 2148 of 1997).

In 2009 an attempt was made to eliminate the numerical restrictions and require the commission send all qualified names to the governor. AB 3866 of that year failed to advance but was reintroduced in the 2011 session as AB 309.

Also in 2009 an attempt was made to increase the limits from 3-7 to 5-9 (associate judge) and from 7 to 9 (chief judge). It too failed to advance.

Oklahoma

The state’s constitution provides that vacancies in the state’s two top courts (Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals) are to be filled from a list of “three (3) nominees” submitted to the governor. A statute (Okla. Stat. tit. 20, § 30.17) extends this practice to the state’s intermediate appellate court (Court of Civil Appeals). No recent attempt has been made to alter these provisions.

Rhode Island

In 1994 the state’s constitution was amended to provide vacancies in the Supreme Court were to be filled from a list provided by a judicial nominating commission to be established by the legislature and confirmed by the House and Senate. Lower court vacancies (Superior, Family, and District) were also to be filled by commission-based appointment but required only Senate confirmation. A statute (R.I. Gen. Laws 8-16.1-6) provides that the list provided by the commission is to be made up of between 3-5 names.

From 2008 to 2015 governors were not limited to just those 3-5 names. Under laws enacted annually from 2008 to 2014 (HB 7829 of 2008, HB 5567 of 2009, SB 2645 of 2010, SB 686 of 2011, HB 8043 of 2012, SB 471 of 2013, and HB 8006 of 2014) anyone vetted and approved by the JNC for a judgeship would be eligible for any other judgeship of the same court for 5 years. The program lapsed on July 1, 2015 when HB 6307 failed to be enacted to give the program yet another 1-year extension.

South Carolina

South Carolina is one of only two states (Virginia is the other) in which the legislature elects judges with no involvement by the governor. In 1997 the state’s constitution was amended to require the creation of a “Judicial Merit Selection Commission” to recommend nominees to the legislature for the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Circuit Court, and Family Court. The commission’s membership and processes were left up to the legislature to set. The law enacted to implement the constitutional provision (S.C. Code Ann. § 2-19-80) requires the release by the commission of “the three candidates whom it considers best qualified.”

There have been over two dozen pieces of legislation to alter the number of names released by the commission. Almost all focused on the release of all qualified names, with “qualified” meaning either a) that the individual meets the minimum requirements for the position (age, attorney, etc.) or b) the person was “qualified” to serve in the opinion of the commission.

The practice for the better part of a decade was for the House to pass the “all qualified names” provision and for the Senate to either reject it or amend it to “no more than 3 qualified names” but with a provision that more than 3 names could be sent if two-thirds of the commission approved. This House/Senate split occurred in the 2003/2004 (HB 4734), 2005/2006 (HB 2079), and 2007/2008 (HB 3463 & SB 40) sessions. The Senate passed its own standalone version (3 names, more if two-thirds of commission approved) in 2007 (SB 40) that the House failed to act on.

The matter lay dormant until the 2015/2016 session when again the House passed an “all qualified” names bill (HB 3979); the Senate has yet to act on the legislation.

South Dakota

The state’s constitution was amended in 1980 to provide that vacancies in the Supreme Court are to be filled from a list of “two or more persons” nominated by the judicial qualifications commission. No recent attempt has been made to alter these provisions.

Utah

The state’s constitution was amended in 1985 to provide for a commission-system with senate confirmation for all courts of record (Supreme, Court of Appeals, District and Juvenile). The list given to the governor for these courts must consist “of at least three nominees.” A statutory change in 2008 (SB 72) brought the state’s other courts (Justice) into a commission system. The Justice Court Commission was required to submit “at least two names to the appointing authority.”

For the courts of record, a 1995 statute (former Utah Code § 20A-12-105, recodified in 2008 as § 78A-10-104) provided the appellate commission was to provide the governor at least 5 names for each vacancy while trial court commissions were to provide at least 3 names. In 2010 this was further amended (SB 289) to provide that the appellate court commission is to submit 7 names to the governor, while the trial court commissions are to send 5. SB 108 of the same year had similar provisions. A 1998 effort (SJR 3) would have allowed the governor to reject a list of names from the commission and request a new list. There was no limit to the number of rejections.

For the Justice Courts, a 2015 proposal (SB 141) increased the number of names from “at least two” to “at least three” for the local appointing authority to choose from. The bill was signed into law in March of this year.

Vermont

The state’s constitution provides the governor is to nominate Supreme Court and other judges (other than Probate judges) from a list provided by a judicial nominating body to be created by the legislature. A state statute (4 VSA 602) provided that the Judicial Nominating Board is to submit all “candidates” to the governor for consideration; this was amended in 2009 (HB 470) to “qualified candidates”. Other than the 2009 amendment, no recent attempt has been made to alter these provisions.

Wyoming

The state’s constitution as amended in 1972 provides for a judicial nominating commission for the supreme court, district courts and any other courts the legislature decides. The commission is to give the governor “a list of three nominees” for vacancies. No recent attempt has been made to alter these provisions.